Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Any 3O barnstars we can award both parties for compromise?

Hiya, working on Talk:Medical degree and wanted to see if there were any barnstars available? My 3O logbook Fr33kman^{talk APW} 05:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Editor's Barnstar, Barnstar of Diligence, Barnstar of Good Humor, 2 Half Barnstars, Barnstar of Peace, or Anti-Flame Barnstar might each be appropriate, depending on the specific circumstances. I think it's great that you're taking the initiative as a 3O provider to give editors in conflict barnstars for their efforts. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that if people sow a spirit of compromise and learn from their prior behaviour, then it should be noticed and recognized! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. In my limited work on 3O (admittedly, I am not the most assiduous contributor..hehe), I have occasionally noticed editors who are extremely civil and willing to work with one another. But, I hadn't thought of the idea of rewarding that behavior. You definitely raise an interesting point, Fr33kman. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We might even want to think about creating some 3O specific templates? Fr33kman^{talk APW} 00:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm up for it. I can see about tossing one together tomorrow. What would the picture be? The scales of justice? Lazulilasher (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How about Rodin's The Thinker?--Regents Park (count the magpies) 01:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsure, but I think that there should be something that visibly denotes it as a WP:3 barnstar (informal mediation rules!) and be oriented towards cooperation or compromise or civility under pressure; those kinds of values, you know? I read on a deletion reviewers subpage somewhere (and he probably nicked it too) "the goal always is to create a better encyclopedia", that says it all for me! Fr33kman^{talk APW} 02:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW: I gave em both a Half Barnstar, thanks for the suggestion! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 02:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I was thinking of the scales of justice image used in the userboxes, but for some reason I have a hard time rectifying it in my mind with the concept of "3". I'm going to put a draft one together and toss it up here and see what everyone thinks. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What a cool idea. Will use these barnstars if helpful and appropriate to celebrate mutually satisfying outcomes. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There's ⁂ (subtle, but can be big ⁂ ). Or these:

(Commons:Category:Barnstars has over 900 barnstars.) — Athaenara ✉ 19:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Why no signatures?

If I understand correctly, the idea is that who requests a third opinion does not sign himself in the interest of "neutrality". Why is it so? I have my own opinion and no reason to hide them, the other editor has his own, and a priori we are all civil people discussing civilly. So why anonymous requests? And furthermore, in the history all editors' names are visible. Am I missing something? Goochelaar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, April 27, 2009.

You're correct on all points. The requests are anonymous to provide a modicum of protection against bias, however unintentional, on the part of s/he who will respond to the request. The idea is to avoid the responding editor forming an impression that the requestor is a troublemaker or is a victim of a pile-on. If all the responder sees is the request, and not who made it, it's easier to go in and give his or her views without bias. Sure, responders can go look at the history to see who made the request, but just because they can doesn't mean they do. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Very well put. It is very helpful to the 3O editor to not know who made the request; simply that one has been made. fr33kman -s- 00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on content dispute resolution

There's a Request for comment on content dispute resolution which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

How to encourage removing listings before responding

Hello, fellow 3Oers! The section on providing third opinions reminds us—when adopting a dispute—to remove the listing from the page, noting in the summary how many disputes remain. After that, it currently says: If this is done before responding, other volunteers are less likely to duplicate your effort. This sentence is written so neutrally! Indeed, I'm not sure it's entirely clear from the sentence that we think it's a darn good idea to remove the listing from the page before actually responding to the dispute. It's very frustrating, of course, to spend time on a dispute only to realize that someone else has been working on it (but simply hadn't taken down the listing). I suggest we say something more affirmative. A suggestion: Please remove the listing before responding, so other volunteers will not duplicate your effort. What do others think? Happy 3Oing! GreenGourd (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. We should include language asking that the request be restored if, for any reason, a response is not actually offered. Mishlai (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I sort of agree. Yes, it's courteous to remove the posting before responding. But on the other hand, two people responding to a 3O just generates a little more consensus - or, failing that, discussion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That line originally read as follows:

• When providing a third opinion, remove the listing from this page and mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain.

In early August 2007 (see archived Proposed changes to 3O layout and wording discussion) the page was changed (version link) from the previous format (version link) and a second sentence was added:

• This is best done before responding so that other editors are unlikely to respond at the same time as you and duplicate your effort unnecessarily.

More often than not, an additional response is a good thing (Talk:Eddie Albert#Third Opinion is a recent example). I think the second sentence should be removed. — Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that a second 3rd opinion (cough, cough, 4th opinion) can be valuable, I think that people who come here to offer 3rd opinions would also like to clear backlog, and that some people may not wish to offer a 4th opinion. If you do wish to do that, you can always look at a recent old version to see what's been removed. By not removing the article, we're sort of taking the choice away from our volunteers, and not everyone wants to offer a 4th. Some people would prefer to be working on articles, etc. or addressing an article that has not yet had a 3rd opinion and I think we should give them the information to make that choice themselves.

Besides, if 3O doesn't resolve, the dispute progresses to RfC, where 4th opinions and beyond are offered, so in this context of 3O I think we should give our editors the option to avoid duplication of work. Mishlai (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, all! Since I proposed strengthening the second sentence, it will come as no surprise that I oppose the proposal to remove the second sentence entirely. I have to respect any 3Oer who doesn't mind taking the risk that someone else is diligently doing the same reading and the same research into editing histories and the same analysis and the same writing, but I'm not that 3Oer. Sometimes, of course, it takes—and should/must take—a fair amount of time to put together a good 3O. I'm unwilling to give up an hour of my time if there's a non-trivial chance that my effort is being duplicated. I once basically stopped giving 3Os when, repeatedly, after I'd spent time thinking about a dispute, I realized that another editor had been working on the problem but simply hadn't taken down the listing. It may be that a fourth or, egad, fifth opinion would be useful to a particular dispute. In my experience, however, additional opinions are usually duplicative. I can even imagine situations where a fourth or fifth opinion would exacerbate a dispute! In any event, I would not advocate setting up a system that encourages multiple responses to the same dispute—something that is more and more likely as the number of 3Oers increases. That's what we would be doing if we eliminated the second sentence.... Instead, we should set up a system that maximizes our assistance to the project by allowing us to divide up the disputes and spend our saved time doing other good work on the encyclopedia. Best wishes to all of you! I'm a big fan of the regular 3Oers. GreenGourd (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GreenGourd. This isn't called WP:40 for a reason ;) ... but seriously, these are supposed to be simply disputes that can be mediated by a 3rd party. If more opinions are needed, well that's what Request for Comment is for. If I am going to put a lot of effort into "solving" a dispute, I don't want to get spend a bunch of time only to find that someone has just rendered basically the same opinion making my work a waste of my time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously people should be removing the listing after giving a comment. But if it so happens that two people see a listing on this page and give comments at the exact same time, it's not really the end of the world. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

<-- Hi all, I think this is my first time on this talk page, so nice to be reaching consensus without having to refer to a guideline or policy or point a new editor in the right direction! I think this is a bit of a tough one. Useful 3Os take some work, and it's a pain to see that wasted.

Some background first. The example of Talk:Eddie Albert#Third Opinion is a good one here. I generally follow a link, have a look at what's going on and then decide if I want to get involved or not. I'd looked at Eddie Albert, looked at a few sources and it was clear what route the 3O would take, but it was also quite an undertaking and I didn't have the time. When I came back to it Mishlai had written a sterling 3O but I felt one editor might need it underlined to them, to emphasise where the consensus probably was, and to comment on Mishlai's work. At Talk:Rangers F.C., when I came across that it was again fairly clear what was going on but to write a considered 3O would take a chunk of time, so instead I left a note on the talkpage of one of the editors, which seemed to help. Leaving up the page at #Active disputes would have allowed another 3Oer to step in, but the dispute seemed to have dissolved.

Sorry for the long-winded way of doing this. Second, a few weeks ago, in my early 3Oing, I wouldn't remove the listing until after I'd contributed an opinion. I did this as I was unsure of my "convictions", but can now see that if I came across someone doing that I'd be a bit peeved if I was duplicating the effort. It is therefore important to make clear to fellow 3Oers that you are working on the dispute.

My final observation is that most 3Os start in a similar way. A bold Third opinion, a statement of neutrality on the article and a statement about dealings with the other two editors. Some choose to put a heading over the top, but I generally prefer to keep my 3O in the text.

So, my suggestion is that the sentence stay as it is, generally the editors who don't remove the listing are inexperienced or unsure of their work, so it's a self-selecting check. I think we should consider the use of a template to introduce the 3O in the article talk page. something like {{doing30|~~~~}} which produces

Third Opinon - a third opinion was requested at the project page. Please note that I haven't previously been involved in editing this article and have had no dealings with the two editors that would prejudice my opinion. I am here to provide an opinion in accordance with wikipedia policies and guidelines that will encourage the formation of consensus and help us all to produce a better encyclopedia. It takes some time to review your discussions, check for sources (if necessary), review the aforementioned policies and guidelines and write the opinion, so I will post it here soon, but in the meantime please continue a constructive debate. Signature, date and time

This has numerous benefits. First, it stops me writing something similar at the start of every 3O. Second, it plants a flag in the ground to "claim" the opinion, so even if someone forgets to remove it from #Active disputes, it is still obvious that someone is doing the work. Finally, it can also me tracked. I'm pretty sure the template or a category it creates could be read by a bot (sorry if this is wrong, I don't have a full understanding of this yet!) and that could maintain a list of 3Os and active editors. We do a lot of good work here that is buried in the history, if we had a list that was maintained based on the use of the template we would record all the articles we've worked on, a useful resource for old 3Oers checking up on others(!), new 3Oers wanting to see what's expected, editors bringing disputes to see what kind of opinion they'll get, the community to see the benefit we provide, and I'm sure there are other positives! You could also generate a list of opinion givers and their contributions, which would populate the active editors list discussed above.

In fact, I might try and create it now, in my user space!

Sorry for the ramble! Bigger digger (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If you really want more volunteers to remove the listing first – instead of “learning the hard way” – you might consider better explaining why 4th opinions are not preferred (in terms of leaving additional opinions for RfC, should the dispute go to that). Simply saying it’s because “other volunteers are less likely to duplicate your effort” invites a shrug of the shoulders from novice 3O’ers who see no harm in extra neutral opinions – the more, the better, since that is how consensus is often achieved in non-mediated disputes on Wikipedia. Indeed, the expectation that there be only one more opinion goes against the norm on Wikipedia, so that means the “exceptional” WP:3O expectation deserves clearer explanation. Askari Mark (Talk) 15:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And my apologies, Bigger digger, for causing you to duplicate my work. It had not occurred to me to remove the entry before addressing it. Mishlai (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, woah, no apology needed! I'd looked at the debate and decided it could wait until the morning if no-one else did it. You did it while I was sleeping and gave an awesome opinion, so everyone wins!

template discussion

I've created {{subst:User:Bigger digger/doing3O}} if anyone wants to look at it / comment / use it. Bigger digger (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I removed the sentence about prior relationships with the article of the users because it is too onerous IMO, a third opinion is welcome :-).--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea overall & thanks for taking the initiative. I made it so the template start a new subsection and otherwise tweaked the wording & the formatting of the template a bit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I split them into two templates, one with headings, one without. You can click to view their output, or copy and paste to use them, they're self-signing but it's always best to preview them before saving the edit that introduces them:

• {{subst:User:Bigger digger/doing3O}}
• {{subst:User:Bigger digger/doing3Oheader}}

17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Carabinieri

1. thanks User:Bibiki for not notifying me about this Cabal Case
2. User:Bibiki is a POV warrior, who wishes to denounce the Carabinieri with his POV, original research ideas
3. edits like these show that he came with an agenda [1], [2], [3]
4. interestingly there is a 3 year gap in his campaign... and he only edits the Carabinieri article
5. his edits are nonsense: he himself admits that there was no resistance to Mussolini before 1943, but insists to denounce the Carabinieri for falling to participate in it (difficult I think to be part of something that did not exist)
6. is wording is not encyclopedic at all: i.e. "The Carabinieri are not known to have been part of the Italian resistance movement" what else have they not been known for??? playing basketball comes to mind; also we would need to mention then that they are not known to have climbed Mount Everest as user:Jim Sweeney aptly observed; sources for this claim: a page listing the Military Operations of the Carabinieri... the conclusion is all his...
7. his referencing is ridiculous i.e this blog or this that doesn't mention the things he wishes to insert, but he uses it as evidence for the personal opinion he took from the aforementioned blog...
8. his knowledge of things like Cabal Cases and third opinions point to someone who is much more familiar with wiki-policy than a beginner - so the suspicion of User:Bibiki being a sock of some other POV warrior is high (compare with the extreme edits of another anti-Carabinieri POV warrior: [4], [5], [6])
9. further debate about the validity of this POV warriors imaginations, is a waste of time. --noclador (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, I think you posted in the wrong place. 3O isn't a "cabal case"; it's an informal way of breaking a deadlock between editors. I'm going to copy this text onto the Carabinieri page for whoever chooses to handle this one. Until then, please keep the discussion on that page. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

nope - the point is: User:Bibiki filed a Third opinion request and a Cabal Case at the same time - anything force his POV into the article... see: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-27/Carabinieri, --noclador (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Well then, the cabal case overrules a 3O. I'm going to remove the request for a 3O. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, --noclador (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Busy?

Is it normally this busy? WP:3O requests a week old? Phew! Bigger digger (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing !3O entries

I was reading over the recently added item regarding discussion on Talk:Noida ATS Shootout and I was wondering what the protocol would be for removing it from the Active disagreements list. As far as I can tell, the interaction between the two users is limited to the half-dozen reverts across a few months, three comments total on the talk page itself, and a short but sweet ANI report. Would I (or others, in the future) be justified in removing the listing and asking the players to talk it out a bit more, or is that just unreasonable? ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 22:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My inclination would be to leave it in and/or give a third opinion. The purpose of a third opinion is to give an alternative view which may help break the reversion cycle and provide the basis for consensus. It is an outside opinion as opposed to a 'right' view and it never hurts to give one. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Deford, MI Dispute

1. It has come to attintion that a dispute between Avery_player2011 and Michael herc has contuined to boil-Veersion of Avery_player2011 vs Version of Michael herc. 00:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emily Bernette (talk • contribs)

I had a squiz at this issue yesterday and got the distinct impression that things seemed to be progressing without 3O input, so I didn't bother getting involved. I don't know if that's relevant, or if this is the place to mention it. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Inquiry

If I have a problem with how an editor presented the issue in dispute at the 3O page am I allowed to change or reword it? Specifically, user Novickas filed a 3O request for Birze but stated that part of the dispute is over "on whom the burden of Google hit analysis falls" - but there really isn't any dispute about this aspect. To me it seems like he's trying to frame the issue in a way that is likely to prejudice outside editors to his view. I apologize if this isn't the place for this question.radek (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not a great idea because the last thing we would want to see is an edit war on the 3O page! One of the 3O regulars will, most likely, fix the wording sooner or later. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(I fixed it. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Thank you!radek (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Rapture

The Rapture article is in an edit war. About four authors are trying to maintain original research on the page that does not represent the views of any large christian organization, or notable scholars. I have provided several articles demonstrating that the statements are incorrect, but it is continually reverted back to the original research. I have even shown that the references used to not support the quotations used in the article. The article should fairly present the Rapture as believed by large dispensational churches, and their theologians, and churches who do not believe in a rapture (majority of them) should be listed. The article is supporting a contradicting historical premillennial view that also believes in a rapture, which is a contradiction, because historical premillennial view as described by churches who endorse this view define it as not believing in a rapture. Anyway, unless some third party people look at the evidence, this will continue to remain a biased page Osprey9713 (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you try WP:MEDCAB. 3O is for when only two editors are in a dispute. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Horn of Africa

1. Talk:Horn_of_Africa# List Clean-up Dissagreement about the definition of the Horn of Africa.[[[[7]]]]

The article about the Horn of Africa is badly abridged,It mentions that the horn refers to a peninsula but does not say what it comprises and it also mentions that it is the name of a region.I tried to post the complete defenition which was, that the Horn of Africa refers to a peninsula which comprises somalia and parts of eastern Ethiopia,and that the term is extended to refer to a region which comprises Djibotui, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia.

However i met with a dissagreement from an editor named Middayexpress, He seems to believe that term HoA only refers to a region, he does not understand that in reality it refers to peninsula shaped like a horn and that peninsula comprises only Somalia and parts of Eastern Ethiopia, nor the fact that the name is extended when refering to the region because most of it area lies well outsied the peninsula.--Liban80 (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, I only see a handful of edits on that page from a month ago. It looks like at least three different editors reverted your edits. Perhaps you should try starting a thread on Talk:Horn of Africa to discuss your edits. As a side note, Midday undid this edit and wrote that your definition of the region is somewhat fringe, which seems to be true. So again, your best bet is to discuss on the talk page first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried discussing the matter on the talk page. in fact the debate covers one of the largest sections on the talk page. however no concesus was reached. I asked for editor assistance twice. The first time i was told to reach a consensus. I followed this advise but got nowhere with the other parties so i went back a second. this time i was told to go for arbitration. So now am following the process of dispute resolution until i can get to arbitration.

I would like to point out that the term Horn of Africa Doesn't only refer to the region. As middayexpress seems to think and you also. That is incorrect.it is one of the definitions of the term. The name horn of Africa in fact refers to a peninsula shaped like a horn. and that the region takes it name from this peninsula which comprises Somalia and eastern Ethiopia. If the wiki article Horn of Africa is only about the region then why does it not include this in its title. There is a big grammatical difference between HoA the peninsula and HoA the region. one refers to a geographical land mark and the other is a line drawn on the map, a political name.--Liban80 (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that there still hasn't been any additions to the talk page for the past month. Discuss your edits on the talk page there, and if you're still unhappy, try for an WP:RFC. There are at least four editors involved there, so that makes it ineligible for a third opinion, which is normally used to settle a dispute between two editors. But again, remember that I agree with them, so there is sort of a consensus. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There reason for the lack of activity is because the argument has been going on for a long. if you check how many post ive made regarding the case, it is quite extensive. As i said earlier the matter went before assitance editors twice, Secondly the editors involved in the matter are refusing to comment on the subject. The last post i made on the talk page was a heading under "No description of what Constitutes The Peninsula of Horn of Africa" so far no one has commented on it. so now i'll go for requesting comments. since applying for third opinion is not appropriate under the sircumpstances. since it was designed to settle arguments between two parties.--Liban80 (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What to do if a third opinion does not resolve the issue

This is a request for a new section on the project page entitled "What to do if a third opinion does not resolve the issue". My question is, do you get another third opinion? Or are there other options? Or should the first third opinion be the final decision? In my case, a third opinion has been given, yet the other party does not agree with the third opinion. Where do we go from here towards a resolution? Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A third opinion is not a final decision but rather it is just another opinion though it comes with the advantage that the person giving it has no declared stake in the conflict. Sometimes, by providing a fresh look at the conflict, the third opinion provides a way out of the impasse (or stalemate). Sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't, editors are expected to use other means of dispute resolution (a WP:RFC would be the most likely next step). I've been pleasantly surprised at the number of times the third opinion is simply accepted and the editors move on but I've seen cases where the opinion is rejected, the 3O maker gets involved in the dispute, or the opinion is completely ignored. The bottom line answer to your question is (IMO) that if the third opinion does not resolve the issue it is up to the editors to decide what to do next. The person giving the 3O should give the opinion, provide clarifications if asked, but not direct the conflict resolution process. However, this does not need to be formalized in the project page (because, after all, the 3O editor is entitled to become involved in the dispute).--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Regents, recently I've been experiencing more of the latter, where I get pulled in and the situation escalates. To answer the original question, though, there are a couple of options. RFCs are always an option, but I've found that if the page falls within a Wikiproject and the project is fairly active, posting on the talk page of that project to get more people involved in the debate tends to work. But I've been struggling with this sort of thing these days, so I'm curious to see what other people say. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

RegentsPark and HelloAnnyong gave excellent responses, I just want to add that the Wikipedia Signpost/2009-07-13/Discussion report links a new content noticeboard and, for a bird's-eye view of the broader dispute scene, Wikipedia:Coordination. — Athaenara ✉ 14:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the guidance of this project page could add a few helpful recommended next steps as best practice? How about something along the lines of:

1. invite the 3O editor to review their opinion and/or comment further,
2. ask for comments from other article editors on the talk page who have not yet commented (and give a reasonable time for responses),
3. raise a RFC for wider comment from the wikipedia community.

—Teahot (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if there are possibilities at all to get a solution if the subject is sensitive and politically charged. My experience from Talk:Martin Luther King suggests that there is no willingness to reach consensus. A cotterie of people seems to have decided that their opinions trumps wp policy and sound arguments. Thus, they won't by any means accept an edit that includes an embarrassing quotation. Two RfC:s have been submitted; they have led to intervention by some persons who haven't behaved much better than those who originally took part in the discussion, as well as by a couple of persons who have shown openness and a constructive attitude. But the input of the latter are of no significance; the obstructors refuse to listen, and think their position proves lack of consensus. How can an article be improved if a sufficient number of dedicated but obstinate people can veto edits they don't like? The dispute is now reported to WP:ANI#Refusal to engage arguments.

The problem with posting on the talk page of the project is that it's likely to attract people with a strong pro-MLK bias. That's an overall problem, too. MLK has meant much to many people, and few want to get their picture disturbed. The motive that lies closest at hand for engaging oneself in a long and tedious dispute is a feeling of sympathy for the subject. I don't know where to find objective people to engage.

Maybe WP should acknowledge its vulnerability to hijacking of POV cotteries? --Jonund (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Teahot, yes, something like that would have been useful to me. Would anyone like to write this up properly for inclusion into the project? Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish I had known about this service, 3O in general, sooner. I've done a lot of editing but not as much as some of the obsessive editors who could benefit from a third opinion. 21:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghosts&empties (talk • contribs)

Odd request...!

Over at Talk:International Baccalaureate#Propose Moving Programmes Section we've got a non-standard 3O situation, where four editors are at a stalemate. We appreciate that this doesn't qualify for 3O, but if someone neutral could take a look at the issue and help us out it would be appreciated.

Failing that, an alternative form of WP:DR would be helpful. This isn't a huge issue, so DR does seem like overkill, but we're keen to solve this amicably so would like to avoid waiting until full-scale DR is required.

Thanks in advance, an anonymous editor (signing with five "~"s), 15:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute #9 is incorrect

Dispute # 9 on the project page is incorrect. I do not know why the user has claimed a dispute on the lead image. I am the photographer of that image and simply made a statement that I have better images to upload that are more illustrative in a post justifying my replacing an older low resolution image in the arts and culture section of the Carmel article. The user who posted the dispute here is jumping the gun on disputes and may have been attempting to manipulate a situation where he went wrong by violating the 3R rule. He has been reported and was blocked for 72 hrs for the violation but the dispute he mentions is not what was the issue. It was over his continued revert of an image that illustrated two seperate parts of the prose for his own image that is an empty stage with nice lighting and trees siluetted against a dim sky. Very pretty, but not encyclopedic.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed this dispute and provided an opinion on what I believe was actually disputed. Huon (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Handy template for giving third opinions

To make my replies stand out (particularly if at the end of a long dispute) I was highlighting my reply in different ways. In order to standardize and simplify my replies, I have created {{3OR}}, please see the template page for instructions and an example. Suggestions for improvement welcome.—Teahot (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Teahot, having received one of these templated 3O's I'd like to offer some feedback that the formatting makes it comes across as a bit 'official' rather than as a third, neutral, opinion. It also visually suggests that the opinion is locked away, not to be commented on or engaged with. I prefer something a bit more inviting to help reach consensus, but obviously that's just my reaction/preference. Thanks for your contribution BTW. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback. I have tweaked the format so there is only a light line to separate the response rather than a box. Example result copied here:

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on standard reference format):

Please see the guidance of WP:CITE which comprehensibly covers this issue.—Test (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

—Teahot (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Much nicer! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW I have added the option for the template to be used as a placeholder to let the talk page know you are working on a reply. —Ash (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

PODS (company) and PODZILLA

The user Laestrygonian3 has placed a deletion tag on the two pages claiming they are too advertorial. When in actuality, they are not, as similar companies, United Van Lines and U-Haul have exactly the same content. If anything the two pages use more references on the data provided then UVL and U-Haul combined. In regards to the PODZILLA site, it's merely identify the product which has received a patent from the US Government, and also identifies the purpose of the device.

With the PODS (company) site, all the information is accurate as shown through the references, the site has been active for weeks with no problems. The site is being inappropriately targeted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.154.165 (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't within the jurisdiction of a third opinion. Leave your thoughts on the AfD page, not here. And the Podzilla article isn't even up for deletion... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: The PODZILLA article is up for deletion, the tag at the top of the page was just removed by an IP. TheoloJ (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Struck part of my comment. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

World of Warcraft

User:Sinneed will not allow wording from the source, http://gamers.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/pc_gaming.aspx seen here, into the article, insisting that the wording be and holds the Guinness World Record for the most popular MMORPG., I insist the line take into account that this was awarded based on subscribers, as is stated in the source World of Warcraft is the most popular MMORPG in the world with nearly 10 million subscribers around the world. so the line is not vague and possibly misleading. I have tried twice to edit accordingly and failed to reach consensus, I have seen no logic or reason behind the dismissal of my first edit aside from the use of the word "was". The second edit appears to be a total dismissal of the source, from those who awarded the record, as a reliable source, a third opinion is necessary to resolve this as I have reached a dead end. My edits are now being called synthesis and original research despite relying on a simple summary from the originator of the included information. Revrant (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This does not seem like a dispute that can be resolved via 3O, since several editors are already involved in the discussion at the article's talk page. If no consensus can be reached. WP:RFC may be an option. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see now that the dispute now seems to be between yourself and User:Sinneed over the inclusion of the words "by subscribers", in which case a 3O may be appropriate. Next time, keep in mind that requests should be listed at WP:3O so that third parties can assess the situation neutrally. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

New eyes are certainly good. The annoying part is that I agree with the edit itself... but it simply isn't supported by the source, as I read it. A web search turns up Runescape's web page showing a Guinness World Record for free-to-play MMO, aparently based on pre-announcement of the 2010 book at E3. Several other web sites mention the new record book entry for free MMO... but nothing I can spot as reliable. There is also reference to WoW holding the most popular MMORPG again for 2010... but nothing clarifying that they are changing the record from just plain "most popular" to "most popular for-pay" in the wp:RS my limited search skills are turning up. - Sinneed (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This is what the disagreement stems from, the source explicitly cites subscribers, but Sinneed does not agree with the inclusion of that in the article, I do not know what else can be done. Revrant (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Further, I have hope that an interested editor with access to the 2009 book could provide more detail than the single line on the web site. Unfortunately, I have not found a free web-searchable copy. - Sinneed (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As to what can be done... as I have made clear: if no one else removes it, the content will stay in the article. You don't need my permission to edit. You made the edit, I removed it, you restored the content... and voila, there it is. I see wp:SYNTH, you see clear support in the source. You don't need me to agree. - Sinneed (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

...and this all seems to be in the wrong spot. Sorry, followed Revrant here. *blush* - Sinneed (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:RicoCorinth reported by User:HelloAnnyong

In case anyone wasn't watching, I just had a little spat with RicoCorinth (talk · contribs). Basically he left a request on the 3O page that was pretty long and not really neutral, so I combined it with another pending request on the same page and neutralized the statement here. But then he reverted it as vandalism, and then we got into a little fight that spilled over onto my talk page.

The reason that I bring this up here is because now RicoCorinth is giving third opinions. Given his hot temper, it seems like he shouldn't be trying to help resolve disputes. I've consulted with Athaenara, who agreed with me and told me to bring it up here. So does anyone have any thoughts on how we can handle this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Any editor is allowed to give third opinions (or any opinions for that matter) unless they have been banned from a certain area. There is no mechanism to prohibit the offering of opinions short of a topic ban. I understand your concerns regarding the temperment of certain editors. If there is a long and clear pattern of inflammatory behavior, you may wish to notify an administrator for evaluation of possible warnings or sanctions. Otherwise, the best option might be to disengage. Best wishes in your future editing —Finn Casey * * * 21:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that it was me that disengaged (leaving it on the Wrong Version). -- Rico 21:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that RicoCorinth comments on the 3O page (and subsequently your talk page) were absolutely questionable, and you were right in repeatedly removing such material. But this doesn't mean that he is not entitled to give 3Os, if he does that in a constructive manner (and it appears it is so now). Of course, if there's further problems, then you can ask for dispute resolution or admin intervention. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 21:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that's fair. I was just somewhat flustered by this whole thing, so I wanted to bring it to light and make sure that the community had a chance to comment on it. If everyone else is okay with it, then I am too. Hopefully if anyone he helps is unhappy with his conduct, they will speak up. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that what this talk page is for? Getting community comment on new editors that offer third opinions? Kind of like an RFC on an editor written into a project talk page? -- Rico 21:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I read the rules -- but missed the parts about brevity and neutrality. I tried to add it by cutting out the nonneutral miniparagraphs -- making it twice as brief -- but HelloAnnyong just reverted me a third time.

The mess left is not neutral, and phrases the dispute in a way that doesn't describe what the dispute is really about, and I seem to have no way to correct that up top. -- Rico 21:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The general idea is that the dispute is described in the article talk page rather than the 3O page. On the 3O page, the dispute should read more or less as follows: "dispute about X in Talk:An article somewhere" where X could be sourcing, neutrality of a statement, etc. etc. The rough idea is to avoid edit wars spreading out of the user talk page since the two parties involved may have different ideas about what constitutes a neutral description.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the drag is -- the way it's phrased -- it's couched within the concept of this being a dispute about the reliability or credibility of the source.

That's such a small part of it! Even if the source were deemed reliable -- (I don't know how that could happen, but everything happens on Wikipedia) -- then the question would still be whether the CAI trade association's own duplicitous propaganda about itself should be included in Wikipedia (any more than Holocaust denial or the belief that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax should be included). Whether to include a lobbying organization's own duplicitous spin about itself is an undue weight issue, as the reply to that would be that the vast majority of all reliable sources contradict the trade association's duplicitous description of itself.

The problem is, the edit in question contradicts an extremely reliable source -- a peer-reviewed textbook, published by Yale University Press, that won the American Political Science Association prize for the best book on urban politics. It is currently used in America's best universities.

That's not a dispute about Jan Hickenbottom's Questions & Answers About "Community" Associations -- and the reliability of the textbook is the very definition of Wikipedia's best kind of source, so that can't really be disputed.

So to call this a dispute about source credibility/reliability, is such a half-truth it isn't really true.

The dispute is whether to inject industry propaganda in the article. -- Rico 22:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How ironic that after reverting a dispute I added three times within 20 minutes,[8][9][10] you would be describing me as unworthy.

I note also that you've been talked to about this before.[11]

HelloAnnyong, I've been advocating compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines long before you ever started contributing to Wikipedia.

I've never been legitimately blocked.

There is no procedure for pre-excluding an editor from participating in 3O -- that would turn it into a cabal -- and even if there were, I would think I should be evaluated on the merits of my own performance (as should you), not on the basis of your targeted, WP:BATTLE-inspired canvassing.

Furthermore, what initiation process has everyone else had to go through to be deemed worthy enough to participate?

Moreover, I think it's a little uncivil for you to use my name as a section title, especially since I use my real name.

Finally, HelloAnnyong, you should have advised me that you had used the project talk page to lodge a complaint against me, so that you could come looking for justice with clean hands. -- Rico 21:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"I think it's a little uncivil for you to use my name as a section title, especially since I use my real name." - Not at all. If you choose to use your real name, one of the consequences is that ... your real name will be used. There is no pleasant way to express concerns about another's behaviour.

I trust both of you discussed before reverting, and feel confident you were both editing in complete wp:good faith, that you simply disagreed.

I agree that it would have been better for Hello to inform Rico about this posting.

I understand both of you are frustrated, conflict is always painful.

• At this point I think disengaging would be a good course for both of you to consider carefully. (Speaking as someone who just disengaged from 2 articles, disengaging improved my day considerably. Those just aren't my problem any more. :) )

I am sorry both of you had unpleasant experiences and wish you both happy editing, and continuing both of your valuable contributions.- Sinneed 21:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's incivil to put a user's username in a section header, because it points a finger at that user, and focuses attention on that user. The discussion on this page is supposed to be about improving the project. -- Rico 21:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that I should have informed Rico of this thread, so for that, I apologize. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should have started this thread at all. Project talk pages aren't the right places for requests for comments on users. -- Rico 16:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to disengage. I will say, however, that I started this thread after a discussion with Athaenara, one of the admins who keeps an eye on this project. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying to disengage by engaging.

If two editors agree that a project talk page should be used for requests for comments on users, that does not mean that this is what project talk pages are supposed to be used for.

I note that you are keeping an eye on the talk page of the article where the dispute is.[12] You don't appear to be "trying to disengage." You appear to be engaged. -- Rico 17:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, that article is not on my watchlist. I went through each of the open 3O requests and looked to see if anyone had answered them yet, and I saw something on the top of that page that seemed out of place, so I corrected it. I have no plans to edit that talk page again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) If I may offer a third opinion here, I think you should both just forget about this and move on. There's nothing to be gained from going back and forth, and as the issue is largely resolved let's just end this here and go build some content! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement#Please keep the article High quality

I propose that the request be removed as inappropriate. Third opinions are suitable for giving an independent point of view on narrow, good faith disputes. Both disputants have admitted that they are biased. This dispute is neither narrow, nor in my opinion, good faith, but is instead largely a personal dispute over editing practices rather than over specific edits. Unless the consensus of third opinionators is to retain it (not one of the disputants), I am going to revert the request in 24 hours. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 06:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, Sorry if I have wasted your Time... Where can I get help for something like this?proposing party10:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.208.237 (talk)

If a third opinion will be unwelcome, consider the other processes described at WP:Dispute resolution, these include WP:WQA.—Ash (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it isn't unwelcome, I just seem to have gone to the wrong place to get a third opinion on the many points we disagree on.proposing party 78.55.200.244 (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal proposal fails for lack of consensus, see Bwrs objection at article talk page. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

3O request on page fully protected for edit warring

Talk:Kabul Province#NPS tribal map has been fully protected for edit warring (diff). The editors involved in the 3O request are involved in the war, which has continued over a number of months. Since the 3O process requires good faith and neutrality, shouldn't this request be denied?

A second question: The 3O FAQ says, "No other active dispute resolution process: If there is a dispute resolution process (such as RFC) in progress for the article, even if a completely different issue, then it should be completed before requesting a third opinion." Is page protection considered to be, without more, a dispute resolution process for that purpose? TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. I don't consider page protection to be dispute resolution, as all it does is stop the battle and forces the editors to talk first. A 3O could be given, but there are technically three editors - Ketabtoon, Inuit18, and Tajik - that seem to be involved. For this one, I would probably leave a note on the talk page of WikiProject Afghanistan and maybe WikiProject Central Asia and ask to get people involved. Another possibility is to take it to WP:MEDCAB and try to get someone to mediate it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

User Tajik came to the scene only once and he left after that. Right now the dispute is between 2 users (me and Inuit18). I asked an admin to take a look at the topic (and give a third opinion), but all he did was fully protect the article and asked us to solve the problem by our self. That won't solve the problem at hand. What we need is few other neutral wikipedians to go over the discussion (where we have presented our points) and the source once and give a third opinion. It is a very short discussion and it won't take too much time to go over it. Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

Third Opinion Award created

I've created The Third Opinion Award, for award to Third Opinion Wikipedians who do an excellent job on a specific job, or just a great job in general. Socrates rendering an opinion while reaching for the cup of hemlock seems amusingly representative of what we do. And, therefore ...

		The Third Opinion Award
		I give this initial award to all my brother and sister 3O cabalists for the great work that they do. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Syntax: {{subst:The Third Opinion Award|message ~~~~}}
Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Lovely job on the template, but why "cabalists"? WP:3O isn't a cabal, it's a volunteer project with no secret agenda. — Athaenara ✉ 20:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Changes by User Amelioration to project page

Amelioration has made the following changes to the 3O project page. While they seem fairly benign, especially when read in context, I'm not at all sure that they're an improvement to the project.

First Change

Second Change

Third Change

Fourth Change

What does everyone think? Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I note on Amelioration's user page that he was previously Matheuler, a 3O Wikipedian whom I have encountered and supported. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

From reading his edits, I think they are OK – they make more plain the collegial, voluntary nature of the 3O process. I've also read the 3O that Amelioration gave linked above, and based on that it seems he understands what 3O is supposed to be. TransporterMan, can you be more explicit about your concerns over these edits? (For convenience: link to the combined diff of the 4 edits: [13]) — æk^Talk 20:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with the changes. Most notably, the edits replaced "dispute" with "discussion," which I think better conveys 3O's mission - we're here to discuss, not participate in disputes (side note: more often than not, a 3O will solve a dispute, but it can just as easily re-frame the argument and re-focus discussion between the original involved editors). Otherwise, the edits cleared up the language quite nicely to better describe the process. Mildly Mad^T_C 20:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much that I'm concerned about them as I'm just not certain that — with no disrespect to you MM — they do much at all. Since they were made with no discussion or notice here (which I'm not condemning, but just noting by way of explanation), I just wanted to bring them to everyone's attention. No more than that. Just an "FYI." Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Rename project to indicate its hostility to outsiders

You know, I asked for a 3O and got some outsiders watching an article. I thought that was very helpful, and that I should contribute to the project by giving a couple of third opinions also. I did one, then that article was rejected for getting a third opinion because I, lowly filth of an outsider to the project, gave one.[14]

If this project intends such overt hostility to wikipedia editors who are not project members it needs to be titled or labeled to make that clear.--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, the template message says that three people are already involved. I counted three, including you. So what exactly is the problem? Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you misread what TransporterMan wrote there. After the request for a 3O was removed from this page, Richard Norton relisted it. TransporterMan's comment was just to confirm that the issue had been dealt with. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood, you were not being declined but rather the 3O request was. Another 3O request was made after you gave one and that was declined on the basis that it has already been made by you. The template used makes it clear that it is the request being declined("Your Third Opinion request has been declined") and that the reason for that is that you have already provided an opinion. Nobody called you filth or an outsider, nobody was being hostile towards you. Your opinion was not rejected. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, there was no third opinion given. The request had been removed by someone else before TransporterMan. Then it was put back and I gave a third opinion.

I've already said this to IP69 in a couple of places, but it bears repeating here: No, it's just the opposite: You gave the 3O — and a good one, at that — for that dispute, for which you are to be commended. My addition was just cleanup to explain why it was being removed from the 3O list. I had to put it in the disjunctive because I wasn't certain whether you were providing an opinion expressly under the aegis of 3O, or just entering the discussion about the dispute, but since 3O is for disputes between 2 editors, either way it took it outside the scope of this project. We're glad you're here and want you to stay. There are no members, per se, here; any Wikipedian can give a 3O, but those who choose to do so consciously, can choose to call themselves Third Opinion Wikipedians. I hope that you will. Very best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Then the request was fulfilled not declined. Why have a template that says the request is declined because there are more than 2 parties involved if what you mean is the request is declined because it has been fulfilled? And, more than one 3O should be offered in disputes. It's not helpful to allow just one person to respond then remove the request before another person responds. Third opinions in disputes are some place where a number of people should jump in. I'm not going to do this again, it's a jump all over people area and do it quickly and get rid of requests quickly. Very unpleasant, these speed editing areas where it's assumed that people live their lives on wikipedia and blinking is discouraged. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

TransporterMan, you may want to consider not using that template, as it can be offputting in its attempt to be general. Personally I prefer writing individual messages. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the template, but IP69 please take note it's my personal template (see {{User:TransporterMan/Templates/TM3ORrem}}), indeed one I created just today, not a general one available for use here at 3O. I'll rework it and hope that you reconsider joining our work here. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've modified the template to remove the reference to "declined." That was, frankly, just plain stupid on my part. Here's what it looks like now:

Your recent Third Opinion request has been removed from the list of active disputes at the Third Opinion Project: Reason: 334993745 —{{subst:signature}} .

Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not disagreeing with you, IP, but Third Opinion isn't trying to solve any seriously important issues here. Person A thinks one thing, Person B thinks the opposite, and discussing it isn't getting anywhere. A third opinion breaks the "tie," so to speak. It's incredibly informal, but simple - more discussion or a fully-fledged consensus is not the goal. What you are advocating (leaving things on the list, getting fourth and fifth (and so on) opinions, etc.) is really no different from an RfC or something like that. Nobody is trying to get points by clearing the table quickly, but once someone gives a third opinion as far as this project is concerned our role is done (aside from the person who provided the opinion). With 3+ editors involved, it's not a simple dispute and other avenues (namely increased discussion) should be pursued. I'd be sad if you left here with a negative opinion of the place, but I really can assure everyone who edits this page really does mean it for the best. Additionally, apologies to all for removing the original request - I simply do not think people should be here without at least some discussion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No apologies needed or appropriate. Your removal of the listing was as it should have been. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My way of dealing with disputes which got a third opinion but were not removed from the project page has been simply to remove the item with a comprehensive edit summary (contribs links aid quick checking):

• diff (→Active disagreements: Warrior4321 & Dbachmann took Talk:Iran (word) #recent edit dispute - 3 items in list)
• diff ( ... Peregrine Fisher gave 3rd opinion on Talk:Lord British#Sudden deletion of half of the article - 2 items in list)

I hope I never remove a dispute simply because there are three editors involved, but I do when there are more than that:

• diff (→Active disagreements: 5 or more in Talk:Seal hunting#Introduction - EU ban dispute, article has been protected while they work it out - 4 items in list)
• diff ( ... Talk:Charles Darwin#Natural Selection never seen as the primary explanation of evolution involves 7 or more editors, not suitable for WP:3O - 3 items in list)

A couple of comments:

• Whether the editor who gave a third opinion is someone I've seen around the project before or not, any valid third opinion is acceptable and quite welcome.
• The "two editors" guideline is useful, but it is not cast in iron or carved in stone. We're free to exercise discretion, in the sense of the freedom to make a decision in a specific context. We're not forced to exclude.

I hope IP69.226.103.13 is not permanently alienated from WP:3O. — Athaenara ✉ 03:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: IP69.226.103.13 said

" ... it's a jump all over people area and do it quickly and get rid of requests quickly. Very unpleasant, these speed editing areas where it's assumed that people live their lives on wikipedia and blinking is discouraged"

I couldn't agree more. There exists no compulsion to keep the list of active disagreements empty at all costs, nor should there. — Athaenara ✉ 03:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree there as well, but I also think one of the nice features here is that generally a pretty quick response does happen. I initially started contributing here after making some requests and finding the responses I got to be helpful in moving a stuck debate between two editors forward. I don't see the idea as necessarily providing a "Well you're right, and you're wrong" opinion (though sometimes that happens), but just to get a fresh set of eyes on a stalled discussion to provide some new ideas. Sometimes, that's much more in the vein of "I can see the point that both of you are making. I think both ideas could be integrated by...". The editors involved are free to accept, modify, or reject the suggestion given—it's not some type of binding decision. But it often does help to move a circular debate in a more productive direction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A few comments:

• I never remove a dispute for having more than two disputants unless I have first studied it and given serious consideration to taking it. Admittedly, the study and consideration sometimes do not take very long, as was the case with IP69's case. And I have opined in disputes with more than two disputants. I agree, however, that one of the values of 3O is getting a prompt response. There's no rush on my part to clear or remove listings just for the sake of clearing or removing them, but once I've studied and considered a dispute I'm going to do something with it. One of those "somethings" is removal if it's already been answered or is inappropriate.
• There's a slight disconnect between 3O opinions being, on the one hand, "unofficial" and "informal" and, on the other, being given "under 3O", i.e. pursuant to and in conformity with its guidelines. Due to that disconnect, and also due to the fact that any Wikipedian can jump in and give a 3O opinion at any time, I both agree and disagree with Athaenara when she says, "The 'two editors' guideline is useful, but it is not cast in iron or carved in stone. We're free to exercise discretion, in the sense of the freedom to make a decision in a specific context. We're not forced to exclude."

• I disagree to this extent: The two editors guideline is fundamental to the very nature of the 3O Project. There are only two things that makes the 3O Project different from RFC: first, the two editor requirement and, second, the fact that a 3O opinion cannot be "counted" towards consensus and be forced on the losing disputant as a tiebreaker.
• I agree to this extent: By the very nature of 3O, by the nature of Wikipedia editing in general, and by IAR, a Wikipedian has the freedom to, without danger of incurring any sanction, ignore some or all of the 3O guidelines when responding to a 3O listing. Athaenara is absolutely right about our freedom, but just as we're not forced to exclude, neither are we forced to include (i.e. not remove).

The gap between those two extremes must be filled, in my opinion, through ethics. I've tried to resolve and clearly state, for my own benefit and the benefit of the disputants who I deal with, the ethical issues raised by this disconnect by setting them out in my statement of personal standards, to which I give a link in all the opinions which I give.

• I feel sadly ironic that I offended IP69, because my purpose in posting removal notices on the dispute pages — which I admit I did in a manner which was ham handed in his case — was to try to avoid offense or confusion caused by listings "just disappearing." Just removing a listing without informing the disputants — and not just the editor who listed the dispute — can leave them hanging, wondering if their listing has been removed because someone has taken it and is studying it or whether it's just fallen off the edge of the universe. A lot of the disputes which are listed here involve newcomers who may not know or think to look at the edit history on the 3O page to find out what happened to their dispute. And, indeed, whether intentional or unintentional, there is a taboo implied against looking at the history page which is caused by the listing instruction which says

  Sign with five tildes (~~~~~) to add the date without your name. This is important to maintain neutrality.

There's more I'd like to say, but this is already too long. Best regards, and Happy New Year! — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

These 3O requests are archived so fast that it seems they are not listed at all. This is very unfriendly to newcomers. When I posted my request for a third opinion, even though I got some third opinions, I thought at first I had formatted it correctly, or it was posted somewhere else. I spent a good 10 minutes looking for it. It did not occur to me that it had probably been archived the very minute it had been posted.

Can you please just remember that when you make projects and pages that move at breakneck speed, there should be some reason for doing so that trumps the vast confusion and off-putting to newcomers it creates? There's no reason a request for a third opinion can't sit for an hour, then be archived. They can be added in order, newest ones on top, someone pop the oldest ones of the bottom of the stack when they're an hour old? You then avoid the confusion, the searching for the post, the seeming hostility. --IP69.226.103.13 19:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IP69.226.103.13 (talk • contribs)

First, oldest items should go at the top so that we know in which order they should be handled. Second, if an opinion is given then it should be delisted from here. That's how the process works: someone requests a 3O, and then the person who takes on the 3O delists it from here and gives an opinion over there. There really isn't a reason to keep it listed here once it's been handled. And while newcomers may be a bit confused by the process, people who take on a request remove it and leave an edit summary that's available in the history. I just don't really see a reason to disrupt the process that's in place. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, always the status quo trumps civility. Good-bye. --IP69.226.103.13 19:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The note was not uncivil, you just misunderstood it. Removing listings that are already dealt with is not uncivil. Good-bye. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Auld Lang Syne 3O Wikipedians

New Year's Eve seems to me to be a good time to recognize the contribution of long–standing 3O Wikipedians. Here's the question: Are there any other 3O Wikipedians still regularly active here who have been grinding this grist as long or longer than:

• HelloAnnyong — first opinion: June 18, 2007
• Athaenara — first opinion: December 25, 2006
• Seraphimblade — first opinion: October 6, 2006

Please list them in this thread if there are. I think anyone with a first edit in 2007 or earlier deserves to be listed. (I apologize to any folks I've missed; I just went quickly through the WP:3O history looking for user names that I recognize and these are the ones I spotted.) Individuals listed here will be given a suitable The Third Opinion Award. Regards and thanks, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You've already got a 3O barnstar, but I'd add you to the list for all your contributions. I'd also add Amorymeltzer for their contributions. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the kudo and done re Amorymeltzer. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)